ParkingEye - PCN Issued over 14 days

carolinen07

Hi g0wfv. It's all very mind boggling this stuff and sometimes you never know which way to turn! Appreciate everyone's help though as determined to fight this!

So far; I have noted the following


a) The parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate loss.
Payment was made for 5 hours and the over stay was by 31 minutes (which too is debatable as ANPR’s are inherently unreliable). The charge being requested is not proportionate to this overstay.

b) The PCN was not issued/received within the required 14 days, as noted within the POFA 2012.
[as noted this is a lease car but I'm sticking this in anyway -as if more arguments the better - I may as well!

c) No keeper liability – This is a business lease car and therefore the onus falls upon the operator, as the party demanding money from a consumer, to provide evidence from the day in terms of photographs etc. of the driver so they can be identified.

Only thing that puts spanner in the works is the Beavis case at the Supreme Court has ruled in PE favour... So whilst I am still noting this, I understand that this cannot be counted on as much as it has previously!

I will do more scouring (once my eyes have stopped burning!!!) and will take a thorough read through and make sure I have exhausted all avenues!!

Edna Basher - That is an excellent piece of information!! I have tried to google the issue with lease hire car and didn't come up with this gem! Thank you all. I do really appreciate all your kind and helpful points!!

enfield_freddy

carolinen07 wrote: »

Hi g0wfv. It's all very mind boggling this stuff and sometimes you never know which way to turn! Appreciate everyone's help though as determined to fight this!

So far; I have noted the following


a) The parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate loss.
Payment was made for 5 hours and the over stay was by 31 minutes (which too is debatable as ANPR’s are inherently unreliable). The charge being requested is not proportionate to this overstay.

b) The PCN was not issued/received within the required 14 days, as noted within the POFA 2012.
[as noted this is a lease car but I'm sticking this in anyway -as if more arguments the better - I may as well!

c) No keeper liability – This is a business lease car and therefore the onus falls upon the operator, as the party demanding money from a consumer, to provide evidence from the day in terms of photographs etc. of the driver so they can be identified.

Only thing that puts spanner in the works is the Beavis case at the Supreme Court has ruled in PE favour... So whilst I am still noting this, I understand that this cannot be counted on as much as it has previously!

I will do more scouring (once my eyes have stopped burning!!!) and will take a thorough read through and make sure I have exhausted all avenues!!

Edna Basher - That is an excellent piece of information!! I have tried to google the issue with lease hire car and didn't come up with this gem! Thank you all. I do really appreciate all your kind and helpful points!!

this is at present being dealt with at the court of appeal , so its not done and dusted yet

carolinen07

Ah Enfield Freddy - I'm sure (though I have read that much today and legal documents are confusing, at last for me!) That they have ruled in favour of PE however Beavis are 'saving funds to take it further'. Perhaps I should leave this in?!

Apologies for all possible confusion. I've spent hours on this and after reading things and not bookmarking pages - things merge into one!!! Clearly just evident to research and continue to read and read!

bod1467

PE won at the court of appeal. The supreme court are still yet to make their decision known. (The SC is the highest court in the land). As such the COA result cannot be relied upon.

Guys_Dad

b) The PCN was not issued/received within the required 14 days, as noted within the POFA 2012.
[as noted this is a lease car but I'm sticking this in anyway -as if more arguments the better - I may as well!

I am afraid that if you write that then you are simply showing that you do not understand POFA and instead of helping your case, will show you up as ill informed .

Freddy has explained why the 14 days is irrelevant,

c) No keeper liability – This is a business lease car and therefore the onus falls upon the operator, as the party demanding money from a consumer, to provide evidence from the day in terms of photographs etc. of the driver so they can be identified.

The PPC is using Keeper liability from POFA. Keeper does not equal driver.
Again, misunderstanding the regulations does not help your case.

Edna's advice is the route you should be majoring on.

carolinen07

Hi Guys Dad - sorry. Don't understand what you mean by 'The PPC is using Keeper liability from POFA. Keeper does not equal driver'

I am aware that the Keeper does not equal the driver and that's the argument I believe Edna is referring to (which I have noted in the appeal ). I read on one of the forums that unless PE can identify the driver then the case goes further in your favour. Is the sentence just badly worded and I should omit the latter part about the driver?

Guys_Dad

carolinen07 wrote: »

Hi Guys Dad - sorry. Don't understand what you mean by 'The PPC is using Keeper liability from POFA. Keeper does not equal driver'

I am aware that the Keeper does not equal the driver and that's the argument I believe Edna is referring to (which I have noted in the appeal ). I read on one of the forums that unless PE can identify the driver then the case goes further in your favour. Is the sentence just badly worded and I should omit the latter part about the driver?




Edna's advice is the route you should be majoring on.

When it comes to hire cars, the hirer becomes, in effect, the keeper at the time. So who hires it is in the frame, If they choose not to name the actual driver, the buck stops with the hirer.

You need to get a grip on what is the actual aspects of POFA.

See here

5)The notice to hirer must—

(a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer;

(b)refer the hirer to the information contained in the notice to keeper;

(c)warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

(d)inform the hirer of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;

(e)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment may be made; and

(f)specify the date on which the notice is sent (if it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

paragraph (a) applies to whoever is leasing the car. The rest of it is where Edna is suggesting, amongst other places, that the Notice to Hirer may be deficient and non compliant.

You should win, but please use the right weapons, so to speak.

Edna_Basher

To add to Guys Dad’s explanation, Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 defines “keeper” as meaning the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper.

In your case, the registered keeper (i.e. the lease company) has proved the contrary by identifying you as the vehicle’s hirer at the time of the alleged incident. Accordingly, as per the definition in POFA 2012, you are the vehicle’s keeper and that's why ParkingEye is now pursuing you rather than the lease company.


You should therefore appeal to POPLA as keeper, introducing your appeal along the lines of:

Dear Sir

POPLA Ref [606xxxxxxx] - Vehicle Registration [AA11AAA]
ParkingEye Ltd: Parking Charge Notice [xxxxxx/xxxxxx]

I write to lodge my formal appeal in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by ParkingEye Limited (“ParkingEye”) as a Notice to Hirer. I confirm that at the time of the alleged parking incident, I was the vehicle’s keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA 2012”).

carolinen07

So Guys - am I right in placing the following in the letter:

Dear Sir


I write to lodge my formal appeal in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by ParkingEye Limited (“ParkingEye”) as a Notice to Hirer. I confirm that at the time of the alleged parking incident, I was the vehicle’s keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA 2012”).

Along with the paragraphs you, Edna, have noted above?

By reading this and (trying..!) to understand; I believe that the paragraph is legal jargon, for simpletons like myself, mean that:

I am acknowledging being the keeper of the vehicle as as in the POFA 2012 I am effectively the keeper

In regards to the above paragraphs - this states that they are breaching conditions due to PE having to distribute the PCN to both the 'Keeper (lease company)' and 'hirer (myself)' within the relevant time frame.
PE must also have sent myself a copy of the documents that had been sent to the lease company (Which, as noted in the paragraphs, they have not...)

My only thought (though I will check this when I get home) is that I'm sure the notice that we received stated 'notice to keeper'. Will that have just been an automatic system letter that got sent to our address due to the details given by the lease company? I can't recall it noting 'notice to hirer'? (Please forgive me if that sounds rather stupid; just want to dot all i's in my mind before I write, as as Guys Dad points out - want to ensure that I have all the right weapons and do not contradict myself as I may have in other parts of the post ) I do appreciate all your help on this (as infuriating as I may be to people!)

Edna_Basher

You're right that ParkingEye's letter to you will have been a standard template. However, their standard Notice to Keeper and Notice to Hirer are both simply headed as Parking Charge Notice.

The differences between them are buried in the text of the notices themselves. For example, their standard Notice to Hirer includes the following paragraphs:

We refer you to the notice to keeper which has been given under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (f). We have been made aware by the vehicle-hire / lease company that you were the hirer / lessee of the above vehicle at the time of the parking event and they have provided your details, together with a copy of your signed hire agreement and statement of liability.

By virtue of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 14 (5) (a) any unpaid parking charges (being the Parking Charges specified in the notice to keeper) may now be recovered from you, as you were the hirer.

I expect that you will see the above paragraphs in ParkingEye's PCN to you.

Don't get hung-up on the 14 days timeframe - this was only relevant to the delivery of the initial Notice to Keeper to the lease company. The deadline for delivering the follow-on Notice to Hirer to you is calculated as being 21 days after the date that the lease company provided ParkingEye with your details (i.e. not from the date of the original incident). It looks like ParkingEye met this deadline.

The actual reasons for ParkingEye's non-compliance with POFA 2012 are as explained in earlier posts.